[COM] New Royal Adelaide Hospital | $2.1b

[stumpjumper]

They did lose, but I believe Rann achieved his unpopularity record only after the election.

[Aidan]

Note to moderators: I suggest moving this discussion into the RAH Discussion thread and making this thread for news only, as this tactic seems to work reasonably well on the South Road thread.

As for the state Libs, they're not as mindlessly negative as their federal counterparts. But it is far more common for governments to damage the state's interest by trying to implement their plans than by doing nothing. And on the rare occasions where government inaction causes big problems, it tends to be because they've failed to stop something happening (for example, the Bannon government failed to stop the State Bank from losing a lot of money).

The state Libs are justifiably regarded with suspicion by many Croweaters, who haven't forgotten Dean Brown's wasting public money on corporate welfare, and haven't forgiven John Olsen's disastrous electricity privatization which many in the party still think was of net benefit to our state!

Last election the Libs did offer something significant - building high density housing on every patch of inner suburban land they could get their paws on. That's the sort of something that's worse than doing nothing. Worse still, they opposed the Adelaide Oval upgrade and weren't planning to upgrade the RAH at all. Under these circumstances it's hardly surprising that Labor won the election. Indeed I put them ahead of the Libs (though that's mainly because I live in Chloë Fox's constituency, as she's one of the better MPs and her Liberal challenger was unimpressive).

But since then the knowledge of just how bad a deal the new RAH will be for our state is more widespread, and the government are more actively trying to avoid submitting it to proper scrutiny. And that means they're deliberately acting against the interests of SA - so they have to go!

[fishinajar]

In other, RELEVANT news, Earthwork equipment has returned to the site, with excavators being unloaded today.

I would say soil remediation and excavation of the disused pits are about to commence.

Thanks for the [on-topic] update Pikey

[stumpjumper]

Aidan

Worse still, they opposed the Adelaide Oval upgrade and weren't planning to upgrade the RAH at all.

They did propose a new stadium though, and during the election the RAH was about halfway through a $1 billion refit that started several years before.

I live in Chloë Fox's constituency, as she's one of the better MPs and her Liberal challenger was unimpressive.

Chloe won by only 164 votes, against an unimpressive Lib candidate...

On the other hand, the Libs don't always seem to have their eyes open.

[Professor]

Good grief!!!!!

Hey guys, the 2010 State election is over. The speculation and various options available for Adelaide Oval with a connecting bridge and some extra public entertainment space. Plus lots of other large interconnected development along the southern side of the Torrens.

There comes a time when the complaining about what decisions have been taken stops and looking ahead to the future starts. I hope that we have passed that point. When I see a new post to this topic I open to see what progress has been made to the site development / contract / design / construction timing etc. Not to read the same stuff again and again and again abou who won the election and what the Libs would have done. It's largely irrelevant at this stage of the project cycle.

OK. That's my rant over with...

[mattblack]

1000% agree Professor.

Can we maybe move all of this to the RAH discussion thread so people who dont want to partake in political discussions and focus on actual development dont have to trawl through the same peoples inane arguements?

[fishinajar]

1000% agree Professor.

Can we maybe move all of this to the RAH discussion thread so people who dont want to partake in political discussions and focus on actual development dont have to trawl through the same peoples inane arguements?

This has been said over and over. Can a moderator please get onto this? I too am interested to watch this projects progress (and yes, though I disagree with aspects of it), but trawling through post after post of the same old "should have/not", "what if"...

[UrbanSG]

I 100% agree and believe more posts should simply be deleted.

This is a construction and development forum and the number of times I have come on here to see updates relating to construction and actual progress on a development only to end up reading endless rants about political processes, wastes of tax payers money, corruption etc. It might also be more understandable if it didn't just go on and on and on and repeat the same information over and over in a slightly different form.

If you want to discuss those details go an start up your own forum about the politcs behind development and construction in South Australia and stop posting on here please.

I'm not just talking about one member either, there are a few that just keep doing it day in day out.

[stumpjumper]

I'm probably one of those members, but in my defence, I think that perhaps one of the reasons there isn't much discussion about the actual hospital construction is because the project doesn't really exist yet. The only work other than remediation happening on the site is for the research centre, which is signed off.

The hospital contracts have yet to be finalised, so other than spending on artists' impressions and fly-throughs, which are what might be called 'political promotional material', no money has been spent by anyone including hopeful tenderers doing resolved design drawings or even engineers' drawings for footings etc. Who would risk money on that if the contracts aren't signed? It would be useful to know who ordered and who has paid for the renders etc. Probably the health department (ie us).

btw, isn't it about time the '$1.7 billion' in the thread sub-heading was changed to at least the $2.73 billion stated in Macquarie's prospectus?

As to complaints about 'non-construction' discussion of projects, objectors should consider that most projects are a bit like icebergs - the built component is only the physical part of the project. Large projects have many aspects - legal, financial, etc and in cases like the RAH, a large political component. These aspects are as essential to the project as the foundations and just as worthy of discussion in considering the project. Limiting S-A to physical construction only would make the forum less interesting and less useful.

[stumpjumper]

iTouch, this is a good example of why 'construction only' threads for large projects are too limiting. There is an answer to your question on the other RAH thread in the Pub. The problem is that the built component of a large project is only part of the story - there are usually issues of finance, politics etc. In the case of the RAH, the contracts are not finalised so no-one has actually produced much in the way of actual construction drawings etc. All we have to go on are a few artist's impressions and fly-throughs which are more sales tools for the project than hard information about its construction.

Anyway, Adelaide Uni has ideas of expanding its medical school and using some of the buildings as student accommodation.

Not much of the RAH is heritage listed. The residential wing at the north of the site, the Hone wing and the East Wing have the best views but are new(ish) and supposedly will be demolished. The Botanical Gardens has claimed back much of the land on which these newer buildings stand. The gardens gave the land to the hospital some years ago in return for the land at the far east end of the Botanic Gardens.

The fate of the non-heritage listed Edwardian Margaret Graham building, and the Moderne style Eleanor Harrald buildings on Frome Road is unknown. They were residential (nurses' quarters) but they'd require a lot of work to bring up to compliance, and quite frankly this government has an aversion to working with existing structures.

On the other hand, if the site were rezoned for saleable residential use, then the private sector would be likely to be interested in converting anything with a good outlook to dwellings.

The new parking block will be retained, no doubt.

In other words, other than the heritage listed buildings which will stay, it's not an easy question to answer.

[ml69]

Speculating only... University of SA may also be interested expanding as it consolidates its suburban campuses?

I'd be pretty surprised if the state govt permitted private residential development on the site. However student accommodation could be a strong possibility.

[stumpjumper]

Who knows what the future holds? Perhaps one large university, incorporating the RAH site and buildings.

Adelaide Uni has used former nurses' accommodation at RAH as student accommodation for at least 20 years.

I know for certain that Connor Holmes discussed with Planning Minister Holloway's office the possibilities of private residential development at the site. I don't know the outcome.

[[Shuz]]

I think that would be the most likely outcome; the existing RAH site being sold for private residential development. It would be quite the cash cow for the State Government to prop up its piggy bank for whatever its policy of the day.

Anyone note that ForestrySA assets were sold the morning after the yes vote went through the Adelaide Oval redevelopment? - Same scenario would be likely to happen for whatever the political environment brings, come 2014.

On a seperate, personal opionion;
I believe that the existing RAH should be retained in conjunction with the new RAH, especially considering two of the biggest issues our state will face in the near future, is an ageing population and a growing population as many migrants will be needed for the mining boom, and to offset job losses by existing people relocating to the mining industries. These two factors, over a timeframe of ~20 years, would justify enough need for the existing RAH to be kept, and upgraded over time according to demand.

By 2050, when Adelaide is projected to have close to, or more than, 2 million people, it would be well worth having two city hospitals.

[Pants]

probably

I do agree that we should never stifle debate about the economics/socio-economics/politics behind a project though. There's much more to talk about in respect of a project than how it gets built.

There'll always be cross-over between construction and general discussion threads for topical projects, but if we can separate the threads as best we can it'll give people the option of what they want to look at.

[stumpjumper]

[Shuz] wrote:
it would be well worth having two city hospitals.

The feds might have something to say about that since they would largely be funding the hospitals.

What's with the [Brackets], [Shuz]?